Littlethunder v. State, ex rel. Oklahoma State Dept. of Human Services

• Decision Date: 18 May 1993
• Docket Number: No. 1,No. 79861,79861,1
• Citation: 854 P.2d 924
• Parties: 1993 OK CIV APP 100 Tina Ann LITTLETHUNDER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Oklahoma, ex rel. OKLAHOMA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, Division
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma

Page 924

854 P.2d 924

1993 OK CIV APP 100

Tina Ann LITTLETHUNDER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Oklahoma, ex rel. OKLAHOMA STATE DEPARTMENT OF

HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent.

No. 79861.

Released for Publication by Order of the Court

of Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 1.

Court of Appeals of Oklahoma,

Division No. 1.

May 18, 1993.

Proceeding to review an order of the Workers' Compensation Court; Louis G. Buchanan, Judge.

VACATED IN PART AND SUSTAINED IN PART.

Robin G. Talley, Kienzle & Talley, Shawnee, for petitioner.

Kaye M. Kirk, Dept. of Human Services, Child Support Enforcement Div., Oklahoma City, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ADAMS, Presiding Judge:

On June 3, 1992, Tina Littlethunder (Claimant) received an order awarding her permanent partial disability benefits. The Workers' Compensation Court also ordered a portion of the award commuted to a lump sum and paid to the Child Support Enforcement Unit of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services (DHS) to satisfy a child support lien. Claimant filed this proceeding seeking to vacate the order as it related to the child support lien.

Because this Court had questions about the jurisdiction of the Workers' Compensation Court to enter such an order, we ordered the parties to address the applicability of Bagley v. Big "E" Industries, 776 P.2d 569 (Okl.App.1989), which considered the identical jurisdictional question. The parties filed supplemental briefs.

Claimant concedes Bagley applies, but nevertheless argues we should address other issues which she has raised. DHS simply argues the Bagley ruling on this issue was dicta and, in any event, is only persuasive authority. We are persuaded by the reasoning in Bagley. As did the Court in Bagley, we conclude the Workers' Compensation Court, as a court of limited jurisdiction, is without authority to order that a portion of an award be commuted to a lump sum and that a direct payment be made to satisfy a child support lien. The proper forum for reaching these assets, and for determination of what, if any, exemptions apply, is the district court. Bagley v. Big "E" Industries, 776 P.2d at 571.

Because the Workers' Compensation Court acted outside the scope of its jurisdiction, the portion of the order commuting part of Claimant's permanent partial disability award to a lump sum and ordering direct payment to DHS is vacated. This jurisdictional determination is dispositive of this appeal, and we need not address other issues raised by Claimant. The...